The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has made an averment that he was issued a letter dated 6-8-1990 appointing him as a Cashier on ad hoc basis by respondent No. 3. Grievance has been made that in spite of the issuance of the appointment letter, he was not given any charge and instead a further letter had been sent to him on 20-3-1991 cancelling his earlier appointment letter. It is argued by the learned counsel that after the issuance of. The appointment letter, the respondent-Bank has got no authority to withdraw the same. Reliance in this respect is placed upon Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 SC 407).
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed on record the documents leading to the issuance of the aforesaid appointment letter. He has stated that the petitioner submitted an application to the Minister for Finance on 10-6-1990 for his posting as a Clerk/Cashier in the National Bank of Pakistan which was referred with the recommendation to the respondent --Bank.
Thereafter, the petitioner was put to test as required under the regulation framed by Habib Bank Limited for the recruitment. He could not qualify the examination as is reflected from the Annexure "R.II" attempted by him. In this background his letter of appointment was withdrawn and he was not allowed to join his posting. Another argument has been advanced by the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable as relationship of master and servant exists between the parties and the Habib Bank has got no statutory rules of service violation of which can be agitated. Reliance in this respect has been placed upon The Principal, Cadet College, Kohat and another v. Muhammad Shoaib Qureshi (PLD 1984 SC 170).
3. I have considered the contentions. The petitioner being an ad hoc appointee has got no right to continue in his job after he has failed to qualify aptitude test required for his recruitment. I have myself gone through the performance of the petitioner in his attempt to qualify the test and have noticed that his performance was not up to the mark. Even otherwise learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out violation of any rules, as such, placing reliance upon the aforesaid case of the Principal Cadet College, the writ petition would not be maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.